Evaluation of sediment yield in PSIAC and MPSIAC models by using GIS at Toroq Watershed, Northeast of Iran

doi:10.1007/s11707-011-0189-7

Front Earth Sci

0, Vol.

Issue () : 83-94 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11707-011-0189-7

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Evaluation of sediment yield in PSIAC and MPSIAC models by using GIS at Toroq Watershed, Northeast of Iran

Mohammad Reza Mansouri Daneshvar¹, Ali Bagherzadeh²(

)

1. Department of Geography, Mashhad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Mashhad, Iran; 2. Department of Agriculture, Mashhad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Mashhad, Iran

Download: PDF(798 KB) HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

Abstract

Regarding the importance of watersheds in arid and semi-arid regions, it is necessary to better protect water supplies such as dam reservoirs. The most efficient way of conserving water sources is to apply proper management to decrease erosion and sedimentation. The first step of this process is to be aware of sediment yield (Q_s)/production and identify erosive zones in upper reach of reservoirs. The present study aims to evaluate Q_s and production in Pacific Southwest Inter-Agency Committee (PSIAC) and modified PSIAC (MPSIAC) models by using satellite data, GIS analysis, and field observations. According to the results, the study area can be categorized into five erosive classes: very high, high, moderate, low and negligible. The east part of the watershed is slightly eroded due to its hard surface geology and relatively flat topography characteristics, while the northern and southern parts of the basin are highly eroded because of the high erodibility potential of soil and intensive cultivation of the area. A comparison of the output maps from PSIAC and MPSIAC models showed that the calculated Q_s in most parts correspond well in both models and with field observations. The results of regression between main determining factors (surface geology, soil, topography and land cover) and Q_s derived from each model indicated moderate to strong correlation coefficient (R² = 0.436-0.996 to 0.893-0.998) after PSIAC and MPSIAC models, respectively.

Keywords evaluation of sediment yield (Q_s) erodible factors Pacific Southwest Inter-Agency Committee (PSIAC) and modified PSIAC (MPSIAC) models sediment production GIS Toroq Watershed Northeast of Iran

Corresponding Author(s): Bagherzadeh Ali,Email:abagher_ch@yahoo.com

Issue Date: 05 March 2012

Cite this article:

Mohammad Reza Mansouri Daneshvar,Ali Bagherzadeh. Evaluation of sediment yield in PSIAC and MPSIAC models by using GIS at Toroq Watershed, Northeast of Iran[J]. Front Earth Sci, 0, (): 83-94.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fesci/EN/10.1007/s11707-011-0189-7
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fesci/EN/Y0/V/I/83

Fig.1 Location and geographical position of the study area

Fig.2 Satellite image (a), surface geology (b), soil and land units (c) and isohyet map (d) of the study area

Tab.1 Effective factors on erosion and and their ranking values in PSIAC model

Tab.2 Sediment class and after total ranking values of nine factors in PSIAC and MPSIAC models

Fig.3 Isotherm map (a), runoff potential (b), topography and elevation (c) and land slope map (d) of the study area

Fig.4 Land cover (a), land use (b), upland erosion potential (c) and channel erosion potential (d) of the study area

Tab.3 Attributions of nine factors and scores by the PSIAC model at the study area

Tab.4 Attributions of nine factors and scores by the MPSIAC model at the study area

Tab.5 , total sediment production and soil losses of each sediment class at the study area resulted from PSIAC and MPSIAC models

Tab.6 Average of total ranking values, the area and the percentage of each sediment class from total surface area, resulted from PSIAC and MPSIAC models

Tab.7 Correlation between PSIAC and MPSIAC models with main determining factors (surface geology, soil, topography and land cover) on annual at the study area

Fig.5 zoning based on PSIAC (a) and MPSIAC (b) models at the study area

Fig.6 Sediment classes and percentage of each sediment class from total sediment production resulted from PSIAC and MPSIAC models

1	Aide T M, Cavelier J (1994). Barriers to low land tropical forest restoration in the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta. Columbia. Restor Ecol , 2(4): 219–229 doi: 10.1111/j.1526-100X.1994.tb00054.x
2	Aide T M, Zimmerman J K, Herrera L, Rosario M, Seran M (1995). Forest recovery in abandoned tropical pastures in Puerto Rico. For Ecol Manage , 77(1–3): 77–86 doi: 10.1016/0378-1127(95)03576-V
3	Bazzoffi P (1985). Methods for net erosion measurement in watersheds as a tool for the validation of models in central Italy. In: Workshop on Soil Erosion and Hillslope Hydrology with Emphasis on Higher Magnitude Events, Leuven, Belgium
4	Clark K B (2001). An estimate of sediment yield for two small sub catchments in a geographic information system. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, Mexico
5	de Koning G H J, Veldkamp A, Fresco L O (1998). Land use in Ecuador: a statistical analysis at different aggregation levels. Agric Ecosyst Environ , 70(2–3): 231–247 doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(98)00151-0
6	de Vente J, Poesen J (2005). Predicting soil erosion and Q_s at the basin scale: scale issues and semi-quantitative models. Earth Sci Rev , 71(1–2): 95–125 doi: 10.1016/j.earscirev.2005.02.002
7	Erskine W D, Mahmoudzadeh A, Myers C (2002). Land use effects on Q_s and soil loss rates in small basins of Triassic sandstone near Sydney, Australia. Catena , 49(4): 271–287 doi: 10.1016/S0341-8162(02)00065-6
8	Feyznia S (1995). Rocks strength against erosion factors in different climates of Iran. Journal of the Natural Resources of Iran , 47: 95–116 (in Persian)
9	Johnson C W, Gembhart K A (1982). Predicting sediment yields from sagebrush rangelands. In: Agricultural Research Service, ed. Estimating Soil Erosion and Sediment Yields on Ragelands. Agricultural Reviews and Manuals-W-26. Department of Agriculture, ARS, Tucson, USA , 145–156
10	Lageras P, Sandgren P (1994). The use of mineral analysis in identifying middle and late Holocene agriculture—a study of peat profiles in Smaland, Southern Sweden I. Arch Sci , 21(5): 687–697 doi: 10.1006/jasc.1994.1068
11	Le Bissonais Y, Montier C, Jamagne M, Daroussin J, King D (2002). Mapping erosion risk for cultivated soil in France. Catena , 46(2–3): 207–220 doi: 10.1016/S0341-8162(01)00167-9
12	Lin C Y, Lin W T, Chov W C (2002). Soil erosion prediction and sediment yield estimation: the Taiwan experience. Soil Tillage Res , 68: 143–152
13	Martinez–Casasnovas J A (2003). A spatial information technology approach for the mapping and quantification of gully erosion. Catena , 50(2–4): 293–308 doi: 10.1016/S0341-8162(02)00134-0
14	Mati B M, Morgan R P C, Gichuki F N, Quinton J N, Brewer T R, Liniger H P (2000). Assessment of erosion hazard with the USLE and GIS: a case study of the upper Ewaso Ng’iro North Basin of Kenya. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf , 2(2): 78–86 doi: 10.1016/S0303-2434(00)85002-3
15	Meade R H, Yuzyk T R, Day T J (1990). Movement and storage of sediment in rivers of United States of America. In: The Geology of North America . Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 255–280
16	Milliman J D, Syvitski J P M (1992). Geomorphologie/teetonic control of sediment discharge to the ocean: the importance of small mountainous rivers. J Geod , 100: 525–544
17	Millward A A, Mersey J E (2001). Conservation strategies for effective land management of protected areas using an erosion prediction information system (EPIS). J Environ Manage , 61(4): 329–343 doi: 10.1006/jema.2000.0415 pmid:11383105
18	Passmore D G, Macklin M G (1994). Provenance of fine grained alluvium and late Holocene land-use change in the Tyne Basin, Northern England. Geomorphology , 9(2): 127–142
19	Pacific Southwest Inter-Agency Committee (1968). Factors Affecting Sediment Yield in the Pacific Southwest Area and Selection and Evaluation of Measures for Reduction of Erosion and Sediment Yield. Water Management Subcommittee on ASCE, Report No. HY12, 1998
20	Qiao Y L, Qiao Y (2002). Fast soil erosion investigation and dynamic analysis in the Loess Plateau of China by using information composite technique. Adv Space Res , 29(1): 85–88 doi: 10.1016/S0273-1177(01)00633-0
21	Rafaelli S G, Montgomery D R, Greenberg H M (2001). A comparison of thematic mapping of erosional intensity to GIS-driven process models in an Andean drainage basin. J Hydrol , 244(1–2): 33–42 doi: 10.1016/S0022-1694(00)00419-4
22	Raghunath J (2002). Potential erosion map for Bagmati basin using GRASS-GIS. In: Proceeding of the Open Source GIS-GRASS Users Conference, 11th–13th September, Trena, Italy
23	Refahi H, Nematti M (1995). Erodibility assessment of the Alamout sub catehment and its effect on the sediment yield. J Agric Sci Iran , 26: 48–56
24	Sahin S, Kurum E (2002). Erosion risk analysis by GIS in environmental impact assessments: a case study—Seyhan K?prü Dam construction. J Environ Manage , 66(3): 239–247 doi: 10.1016/S0301-4797(02)90574-8 pmid:12448403
25	Shrimali S S, Aggarwal S P, Samra I S (2001). Prioritizing erosion-prone areas in hills using remote sensing and GIS—a case study of the Sukhna Lake catchment, Northern India. Int I Applied Earth Observ. Geoinform , 3(1): 54–60 doi: 10.1016/S0303-2434(01)85021-2
26	Szilassi P, Jordan G, van Rompaey A, Csillag G (2006). Impacts of historical land use changes on erosion and agricultural soil properties in the Kali Basin at Lake Balaton, Hungary. Catena , 68: 96–108
27	Tangestani M H (2001). Integrating geographic information systems in erosion and sediment yield applications using the erosion potential method (EPM). In: Proceedings of the 015 Research UK, 9th Annual Conference, 18th–20th April, University of Glamorgan, Wales, UK , 621–623
28	Tangestani M H (2006). Comparison of EPM and PSIAC models in GIS for erosion and sediment yield assessment in a semi-arid environment: Afzar Catchment, Fars Province, Iran. J Asian Earth Sci , 27: 585–597 doi: 10.1016/j.jseaes.2005.06.002
29	Thornton P K, Jones P O (1998). A conceptual approach to dynamic agricultural land use modeling. Agric Syst , 57(4): 505–521 doi: 10.1016/S0308-521X(98)00005-5
30	Veldkamp A, Fresco L O (1996). CLUE: a conceptual model to study the conversion and its effects. Ecol Modell , 85(2–3): 253–270 doi: 10.1016/0304-3800(94)00151-0
31	Williams J R, Berndt H D (1972). Sediment yield computed with universal equation. J Hydraul Div ASCE , 98(HY2): 2087–2098
32	Wischmeier W H, Smith D D (1978). Predicting Rainfall Erosion Losses: A Guide to Conservation Planning. Agricultural Handbook, No. 537. Department of Agriculture, Washington DC, USA
33	Woida K, Moines D, Clark K B (2001). A GIS application of PSIAC for predicting sediment-yield rates. Seventh Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference . USGS, Report No. 25–32

[1]	Emre ÇOLAK, Filiz SUNAR. Spatial pattern analysis of post-fire damages in the Menderes District of Turkey[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2020, 14(2): 446-461.
[2]	Evangelin Ramani SUJATHA. A spatial model for the assessment of debris flow susceptibility along the Kodaikkanal-Palani traffic corridor[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2020, 14(2): 326-343.
[3]	Shifa MA, Feng LIU, Chunlei MA, Xuemin OUYANG. Integrating logistic regression with ant colony optimization for smart urban growth modelling[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2020, 14(1): 77-89.
[4]	Mohammad Saeid MIRAKHORLO, Majid RAHIMZADEGAN. Evaluating estimated sediment delivery by Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) and Sediment Delivery Distributed (SEDD) in the Talar Watershed, Iran[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2020, 14(1): 50-62.
[5]	Guiyun ZHOU, Hongqiang WEI, Suhua FU. A fast and simple algorithm for calculating flow accumulation matrices from raster digital elevation[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2019, 13(2): 317-326.
[6]	Xiaoping LIU, Shuli CHEN, Li ZHUO, Jun LI, Kangning HUANG. Multi-sensor image registration by combining local self-similarity matching and mutual information[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2018, 12(4): 779-790.
[7]	Bilaşco ŞTEFAN, Roşca SANDA, Fodorean IOAN, Vescan IULIU, Filip SORIN, Petrea DĂNUŢ. Quantitative evaluation of the risk induced by dominant geomorphological processes on different land uses, based on GIS spatial analysis models[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2018, 12(2): 311-324.
[8]	Chong PENG, Hao XIAO, Yu LIU, Jingjing ZHANG. Economic structure and environmental quality and their impact on changing land use efficiency in China[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2017, 11(2): 372-384.
[9]	Ştefan BILAŞCO, Corina GOVOR, Sanda ROŞCA, Iuliu VESCAN, Sorin FILIP, Ioan FODOREAN. GIS model for identifying urban areas vulnerable to noise pollution: case study[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2017, 11(2): 214-228.
[10]	Qing GU, Jun LI, Jinsong DENG, Yi LIN, Ligang MA, Chaofan WU, Ke WANG, Yang HONG. Eco-environmental vulnerability assessment for large drinking water resource: a case study of Qiandao Lake Area,China[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2015, 9(3): 578-589.
[11]	Jianqi ZHUANG,Jianbing PENG,Javed IQBAL,Tieming LIU,Na LIU,Yazhe LI,Penghui MA. Identification of landslide spatial distribution and susceptibility assessment in relation to topography in the Xi’an Region, Shaanxi Province, China[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2015, 9(3): 449-462.
[12]	Yue LIU, Qiuming CHENG, Qinglin XIA, Xinqing WANG. The use of evidential belief functions for mineral potential mapping in the Nanling belt, South China[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2015, 9(2): 342-354.
[13]	Huan LI, Dingyi XU, Yan ZHAO. Peatland area change in the southern Altay Mountains over the last twenty years based on GIS and RS analysis[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2014, 8(4): 558-563.
[14]	Yingzhi LIN,Xiangzheng DENG,Xing LI,Enjun MA. Comparison of multinomial logistic regression and logistic regression: which is more efficient in allocating land use?[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2014, 8(4): 512-523.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed